Are you kidding me? If this document talking about possibly killing LGTBQ’s and women who refuse to be brood mares for Jaysus was given to kids while they’re having their graham crackers and milk, that would make it okay???
:smack: :dubious::eek:
I love the implicit idea here that a political candidate promoting exterminating atheists isn’t a big deal if he’s not, like, actually calling for immediate implementation of his plan.
You do you, brother. Probably best not to hijack this thread further.
No one is quite sure what happened to the agnostics.
I don’t see the document as “calling for” the killing of anyone. It looks to me most likely a review of some portions of the Old Testament, not a “hey, let’s all go stone the queers” call to action.
For example, if I were going to teach a lesson one Sunday about Exodus 31, and I put in my notes “God commands his people to kill Sabbath-breakers”, and someone got a copy of them and ran to the news station and said, “zzzzOMG!!! HD wants to kill Sabbath-breakers!!!1!!”, those sort of hysterics would rightly be met with eye-rolls from reasonable people, agreed?
In terms of absolute fantasies of candidates who will likely win in a landslide, despite what I think, it’s a toss up between Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton. Patrick because he’s just an ass and represents everything that’s wrong with the Texas GOP.
Paxton because he’s the state Attorney General, and is shady as fuck. The guy’s been indicted on state securities fraud charges while in office, but for mysterious reasons, has yet to be tried. He’s also TWICE been sued by the SEC for securities fraud, but the federal judge has conditionally dismissed the charges.
I have to figure where there’s smoke, there’s also fire. Plushis mug shot when indictedshows him to be eminently punchable and a cocky, smarmy jerk.
Where in the Old Testament are you supposed to include “no communism, no same sex marriage, no abortion” in your surrender demands to your opponent?
Working mugshot link:
I don’t know. I wasn’t there when it was distributed, I don’t share his particular flavor of faith, and I don’t know precisely where his bullet points are coming from. That’s why I asked “Do you know anything about the context?” rather than leaping to the conclusion that he had laid out his secret plan to commit genocide and establish a theocracy and some courageous reporter had uncovered the plot and saved us all.
I normally like Claire McCaskill, but her campaigning in the last days has been quite undignified, calling fellow Democrats “crazy” and throwing immigrants under the bus. Take a cue from Heitkamp and go out with your dignity intact.
So yeah, I’ll enjoy seeing her lose.
No one claimed that.
What you seem to be arguing, however, is that there are contexts in which the above linked document is appropriate from a candidate for office. Yes?
These claims seem close enough:
Devoid of context I don’t find the above-linked document particularly alarming. At least, not moreso than, say, the Holy Bible. If I learned that he was passing out the documents at a “kill the atheists” rally or he gave a speech in which he called for stoning gays or something like that, I’d be more concerned.
Speaking of black marks, I am surprised Mia Love was elected in Utah. Because she would have been considered a “lesser person” prior to 1978 who was banned from Utah temples. Maybe you can explain that history to the crowd here?
Seems more than just a tad off-topic for this thread, doesn’t it?
I guess everyone can just google that stuff.
(or just read this link )
I don’t see any inconsistency between those two positions. Cleaning up Arizona will take bipartisan efforts.
What part of the Bible commands the faithful to demand of the vanquished that they not adhere to communism or perform abortions?
See post #88 (and do me a favor and don’t read anything extra into that post #)
When Henry II allegedly asked “Will no one rid of me of this turbulent priest?” it was of no matter. HE didn’t have a specific plan of action, a plot, that he was proposing …
Ha.
But you speculated that the paper could be part of a Bible lesson. The linked article said it was related to some sermons.
Does it strike you upon first glance that the forcing the vanquished to forswear abortion and communism has a biblical basis such that one might find in routine sermons? Because you asked for context, and that context seems extremely implausible.
To me, no, particularly the communism bit (abortion perhaps moreso), but interpretations of the Bible are numerous and diverse. Like I said, I don’t subscribe to his particular flavor of faith, but I don’t find it all that implausible that these might be “related to some sermons” rather than a call to action for people to take up arms against their neighbors Hutu-style.
I don’t know the guy, and had never heard of him before today. I was just sharing what it looked like to me at a quick glance, and I thought it was more than a little funny that the liberals are in another thread complaining that Trump was using “invasion” to work people up, but over here they were working themselves into a lather over some nobody’s sermon summary.
If anyone wants to cling to the belief that he was “calling for the slaughter of all dissident men” or “talking about possibly killing LGTBQ’s and women”, they’re obviously free to do so, but it strikes me as silly fear-mongering.